Hobo wrote: "You may think this is clever trolling... but it really isn't." Response: I'm not trolling anyone. I'm just asking very simple questions that nobody seems to be able (or is willing to) answer.

Hobo wrote: "If we applied your standards to every claim by every manufacturer, which of them would hold up?" Response: The F-35 will be the most expensive weapon system (product) in the history of the planet, not country, planet Earth. Lockheed Martin is also issuing more misinformation, disinformation, sales puffery, confusion and propaganda about this product than any ten (10) weapons programs combined. Lockheed Martin has over $10-billion dollars of Goodwill on its balance sheet--1/4 of the the company's assets are as intangible as a pile of hydrogen--and LM's LCS 1 (USS Freedom) is an unmitigated world-class disaster.http://www.pogo.org/pogo-files/letters/ ... racks.html So you would have to be willfully negligent, even reckless, not to be suspicious of marketing claims like: "The aircraft has flown to 9.9g's," from a company who's very survival depends on getting this product far enough down the production road that it can't be cancelled.

Hobo wrote: "The F-35 is designed to be a 9G aircraft." Response: In what way? A "9G aircraft" is a many splendored thing. Is a combat-loaded F-35 designed to do 9g's in a sustained turn? Being able to randomly incur 9g's and being able to intentionally pull 9g's during a maneuver are two VERY different things.

Hobo wrote, "The fact that it reached 9.9Gs so far in testing is perfectly consistent with that." Maybe, but factually, we really don't know, because that 9.9G might have randomly occurred for 1/1000 of a second in a downdraft.

Here's the point. Just because the F-35 is able to survive (doesn't come apart and self destruct) under a load of 9g's doesn't mean the F-35 is, "more maneuverable than an F-16 or an F-18." So lets stop saying that. I'm tired of the LM sales/marketing/propaganda B.S..

I'm out. I want to stop this. This is getting silly and boring. Let's change the subject.

A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

Reasoning

The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

Person A has position X.

Person B disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y. Thus, Y is a resulting distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:

* Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position.

* Quoting an opponent's words out of context — i.e. choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's actual intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).

* Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person's arguments — thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.

* Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.

* Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.

avxva wrote:I'm not trolling anyone. I'm just asking very simple questions that nobody seems to be able (or is willing to) answer. Al

You have indeed asked simple questions... and have received simple answers backed up by written sources. The issue is that you have already decided that said sources of information are unreliable and that you know better than anyone else.

The F-35 will be the most expensive weapon system (product) in the history of the planet, not country, planet Earth. Lockheed Martin is also issuing more misinformation, disinformation, sales puffery, confusion and propaganda about this product than any ten (10) weapons programs combined.

Most expensive and most ambitious, replacing at least 4 different aircraft and different roles with 1 type. No wonder it is expensive, but still cheaper than a Typhoon! The Typhoon didn't have to deal with building fighters concurrently either something forced on them by the Pentagon's experts....

Lockheed Martin has over $10-billion dollars of Goodwill on its balance sheet--1/4 of the the company's assets are as intangible as a pile of hydrogen

That is what Goodwill is an intangible asset, it is a measure of intellectual capital, brand, customers, etc. In a public company like Lockheed Goodwill is evaluated by the market. A company can not increase Goodwill by advertising, but Goodwill can be added to by acquisitions. Hopefully that clears up the meaning of Goodwill because you got it horribly wrong.

If you think Lockheed has a lot of Goodwill look at the accounting sheets of any of the large software companies.

World class disaster seems to be a bit too much, what would the competing Littoral ship the USS Independance be then a Galactic class disaster?

Hobo wrote: "The F-35 is designed to be a 9G aircraft." Response: In what way? A "9G aircraft" is a many splendored thing.

Is a combat-loaded F-35 designed to do 9g's in a sustained turn? [b]Being able to randomly incur 9g's and being able to intentionally pull 9g's during a maneuver are two VERY different things.

Thanks for the insight! But I'm pretty sure the F-35 will be able to pull 9g's sustained if needed, and if the pilot can keep up.

Here's the point. Just because the F-35 is able to survive (doesn't come apart and self destruct) under a load of 9g's doesn't mean the F-35 is, "more maneuverable than an F-16 or an F-18." So lets stop saying that. I'm tired of the LM sales/marketing/propaganda B.S..

Then don't read the LM marketing, you are probably a big boy, you don't need to read it.

Ignoring the various irrelevant garbage in your last post... let me get back to the heart of the matter.

You don't want to believe Lockheed because, well, you just don't want to believe Lockheed.

It actually makes me curious...

Do you believe the moon landing was as hoax? How about Elvis, dead or alive in your world? Kennedy, second shooter or no? Roswell? Flouridation conspiracy? Chemtrails? Aurora plane?

Lets lay some ground rules here. If you want to have a reasonable discussion, you need to -be reasonable- yourself. If everyone here simply chose to disbelieve anything they didn't like this whole place would look like this thread.

Pull your head out. At this point it is beyond obvious that you are either brain damaged or trolling.

Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT ) carries $11 billion of goodwill and other intangibles on its balance sheet. Sometimes goodwill, especially when it's excessive, can foreshadow problems down the road. Could this be the case with Lockheed Martin?

[...]

Intangible assets ratioThis ratio shows us the percentage of total assets made up by goodwill and other intangibles. Heiserman says he views anything over 20% as worrisome, "because management might be overpaying for the acquisition or acquisitions that gave rise to the goodwill."

Lockheed Martin has an intangible assets ratio of 29%.

This is not so far over Heiserman's threshold as to cause panic, but you'll want to keep an eye on this number over the next few quarters. It's also useful to compare it to tangible book value, which I explain below.

Tangible book valueTangible book value is simply what remains after subtracting goodwill and other intangibles from shareholders' equity. If this is not a positive value, Heiserman advises you to run away because such companies may "lack the balance sheet muscle to protect themselves in a recession or from better-financed competitors."

I asked Heiserman about the tendency for some large-cap blue chips to have a high intangible assets ratio and negative tangible book value. He says this can be OK, provided the company has (1) modest or no net debt, (2) persistent and rising levels of free cash flow, and (3) stock buybacks at a discount to intrinsic value.

Because of this -- and research I've done indicating negative book value may not be detrimental to large caps -- I give this company the benefit of the doubt here.

Foolish bottom lineIf you own Lockheed Martin, or any other company that fails one of these checks, make sure you understand the business model and management's objectives. You can never base an entire investment thesis on one or two metrics, but there is a yellow flag here. I'll help you keep a close eye on these ratios over the next few quarters by updating them soon after each earnings report.

cafpilot wrote:Thanks for the insight! But I'm pretty sure the F-35 will be able to pull 9g's sustained if needed, and if the pilot can keep up.

A fully-loaded F-35A is 9-tons heavier than a fully-loaded F-105 Thunderchief and the F-35A has a significantly higher wing loading. (Do the math on fully loaded aircraft.) Given the fact that empty F-35's are limited to under 20-degrees AoA flight profiles because of a nasty transonic rolloff in turns, somehow, I don't find your assertion that a fully loaded F-35 can sustain a 9g turn as being very credible...

avxva wrote:The F-35 does 9.9g's for 1/1000 of a second and all of a sudden it's a "9+ G fighter!"

I can only assume that from your banter that you are either a child, or a troll. Your question was a valid question to which you received good answers...which you in turn rebuffed. I for one would NOT want to be at 9.9g's for more than a second...and that's from experience there sport. As far as not having any friends here...you've done that to yourself. Swallow your pride and accept the answers you have here...otherwise, go troll somewhere else.

A fully-loaded F-35A is 9-tons heavier than a fully-loaded F-105 Thunderchief and the F-35A has a significantly higher wing loading. (Do the math on fully loaded aircraft.)

To believe someone is still comparing the F-105 to the F-35 is funny. Alright I'll indulge just a bit. F-35 has about 45,000lb of thrust, F-105 24,000lb, that is important. For one, fighters never fight when they are fully loaded, if they are something is terribly wrong. A more realistic comparison would be closer to half their fuel. So an important factor in the comparison F-35 thrust/weight close to 1.05, F-105 is probably 0.7. G loading - F-35 up to 9, F-105 what probably 7G at the most more likely 5G at comparible loads and speeds. So as you see you are missing a few parts of the EM equation.

Given the fact that empty F-35's are limited to under 20-degrees AoA flight profiles because of a nasty transonic rolloff in turns, somehow, I don't find your assertion that a fully loaded F-35 can sustain a 9g turn as being very credible...

Transonic is about Mach .95 to 1.05, most fighters that can sustain 9G are at a much slower speed than this. Provide an example of a fighter that sustains 9G at these speeds, without using tons of altitude.

avxva, you've asked fair questions, but you've also made unfair assertions. Such as the A380 having a larger envelope than the F-35, or that the F-35 can't sustain 9g for extended periods.

If you want to be critical of LM and published data on the F-35, that's fine, but I feel you've gone well beyond that with baseless speculation.

avxva wrote:Yeah, and I'm a Chinese, not a Malaysian, jet pilot. A fully-loaded F-35A is 9-tons heavier than a fully-loaded F-105 Thunderchief and the F-35A has a significantly higher wing loading. (Do the math on fully loaded aircraft.) Given the fact that empty F-35's are limited to under 20-degrees AoA flight profiles because of a nasty transonic rolloff in turns, somehow, I don't find your assertion that a fully loaded F-35 can sustain a 9g turn as being very credible...

The F135 produces 19,000 more lbf (at sea level) than the J75, and its in a modern combat aircraft that is probably less draggy, especially when fully loaded.

What does wing loading matter? Every plane that wants to fly needs to balance its own weight with lift no matter how small the wings are. You could double the F-35's wing area and it would produce the same lift, it would have to. But in doing so, you would either increase the chord or the span. The former would lower aspect ratio and hurt subsonic performance, while the latter would hurt trans/supersonic performance. The F-35's wing was optimized to meet a goal just like any other aircraft. And for the record a fully loaded F-35 has a fuel fraction rivaling that of legacy fighters with drop tanks. There's also no rule in aerodynamics that says you need to go 20 AoA to pull 9 g. Not that I doubt that the F-35 will have trouble exceeding 20 AoA, hiccups or not.